Sizewell C Community Forum 16 December 2019
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EDF Energy Sizewell C Community Forum 16 December 2019 Attendees: Brian Stewart OBE, Community Forum Chair Mary Ann Woolf, Leiston-cum-Sizewell Town Council Jim Crawford, EDF Energy Nick Mayo, Leiston, Saxmundham and District Citizens Advice Bureau Tom McGarry, EDF Energy Richard Cooper, Marlesford Parish Council Richard Bull, EDF Energy Bill Banks, Melton Parish Council Stephen Roast, EDF Energy Roy Dowding, Middleton-cum-Fordley Parish Council Rebecca Calder, EDF Energy Jeff Hallett, Pettistree Parish Council Peter Palmer, Aldeburgh Town Council Mike Stevenson, Rendlesham Parish Council David Secret, Benhall and Sternfield Parish Council Adam Rowlands, RSPB Minsmere Nature Reserve David Hepper, Bredfield Parish Council David Sims, Sibton Parish Council Richard Fernley, Campsea Ashe Parish Council Pat Hogan, Sizewell Residents Association Michael Simons, Darsham Parish Council Ian Bradbury, Southwold Town Council Rod Smith, Dunwich Parish Meeting Simon Amstutz, Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB Jocelyn Bond, East Suffolk District Council Rachel Fulcher, Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth Tony Cooper, East Suffolk District Council Leigh Jenkins, Suffolk Constabulary Philip Ridley, East Suffolk District Council Bryn Griffiths, Suffolk County Council Simon Barlow, Environment Agency Russ Rainger, Suffolk County Council Ian Norman, Farnham with Stratford St Andrew Parish Alan Miller, Suffolk Wildlife Trust Council Sue Jackson, Friston Parish Council Stephen Brett, Theberton & Eastbridge Parish Council Argus Gathorne-Hardy, Gt Glemham Parish Council Mike Taylor, Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) Adrian Revill, Hacheston Parish Council Arthur Stansfield, Wickham Market Parish Council Edwina Galloway, Kelsale-cum-Carlton Parish Eamonn O’Nolan, Woodbridge Town Council Council John Staff, Knodishall Parish Council John Walford, Yoxford Parish Council I. Chair’s Introduction The Chair introduced himself and welcomed the attendees. The minutes of the meeting would be circulated. 1 Sizewell C Community Forum EDF Energy II. Apologies Mike Taylor noted that he was attending in place of Joan Girling, who passed on her apologies. III. Minutes of the Last Meeting The Chair proposed that the minutes of the last Forum be approved as a correct record of the meeting. The Chair’s proposal was accepted by the Forum. The minutes were therefore approved as a correct record of the previous meeting. IV. Project Update Jim Crawford reported that 2019 marked the conclusion of the formal stages of public consultation on Sizewell C. There had been nearly 10 months of formal consultations, with EDF engaging with over 10,000 local residents and stakeholders. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would be published with the application for development consent. EDF was continuing enabling works activity. Some activities would be subject to scrutiny outside the consenting process delivered by the Planning Inspectorate, including applications for environmental permits which the the Environment Agency would have to determine(EA). There had also been the publication of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) report on Net Zero emissions in the UK. A consultation launched by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) had considered a different financial model for Sizewell C and HPC. The regulated asset base model had been a success for the Thames Tideway Tunnel. The Sizewell C Development Consent Order (DCO) application would endeavour to demonstrate how EDF would mitigate the impact of construction on designated landscapes. Employment and training As well as building a sustainable, local supply chain, there was a keen focus on the people who would build Sizewell C and creating well-paid, highly-skilled jobs in the local community. Next Steps EDF would circulate a newsletter in January 2020. The DCO application would be submitted in 2020. It was anticipated that the Secretary of State for BEIS would announce a decision, with regards to the Planning Inspectorate, by late 2021. In 2020 EDF would submit applications for environmental permits to the EA. It was expected that there would be an update on the potential financing model for Sizewell C. There would be ongoing technical assessment and design works, as well as engagement with community groups and parishes. Jim Crawford thanked the Forum for participating in the consultation process. V. Stage 4 Feedback Tom McGarry recounted that the Stage 4 public consultation had focused on: • Integrated transport strategy; • Bypass of Theberton/B1122: temporary or permanent; • Additional land for wildlife mitigation; • Further details on jobs and training. The issues highlighted would be included in the Report on Consultation which would be submitted with the DCO application report. There had been: • Eight exhibitions; • 640 responses; 16 December 2019 2 Sizewell C Community Forum EDF Energy • 16 additional Stage 3 responses. Issues raised: • EIA; • Response to Stage 3 feedback; • Nuclear related issues; • Tourism; • Community impact/benefits; • Many respondents did not express views of outright support or opposition; • Environment: AONB and RSPB Minsmere. Transport Richard Bull stated that transport had been recognised as a main issue for local communities. Work would continue on proposals to reduce the road traffic impact on local communities. Many respondents continued to prefer the rail-led option. The proposed integrated option would only be accepted if the rail-led strategy was deemed to be unviable. Concerns had also been raised regarding noise impacts at night through rail transport. There had been consistent support for the two-village bypass. There had been some support for making the Sizewell link road temporary, though just as many individuals had felt it should remain as a permanent legacy. A new site layout and railhead had been proposed for the land to the east of Eastlands Industrial Estate in Leiston. Environment The introduction of additional land for marsh harriers had been welcomed. There had been a request for further detail on coastal processes. Respondents had also expressed an interest in having access to further details regarding the impacts on the marine life, which had informed EDF’s position for discounting the construction of a large jetty to import construction materials by sea. While the issue of pylons had been raised, there been no majority view on either of the proposed options. Jobs and training Few comments had been received. EDF has joined with charity partners to provide the Youth Employment Service Hub in Leiston, and it continued to develop its education strategies. Next steps involved EDF responding to the feedback within its DCO proposals, before submitting the application to the Planning Inspectorate. The Forum was presented with a video detailing the examination process for NSIPs. The video can be accessed via https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/application- process/participating-in-the-process/. VI. Q&A Peter Palmer asked why EDF had provided a disingenuous response with regards to the pylons. Jim Crawford responded that the need for the pylons had been identified through the engineering and technical work carried out. There was a technical reason driving the need for the pylons. Simon Amstutz asked if Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB could be assured that the DCO would include an assessment of the project against the defined natural beauty and special qualities elements of the AONB. Richard Bull confirmed this. 16 December 2019 3 Sizewell C Community Forum EDF Energy Stephen Brett asked Jim Crawford to clarify when EDF would submit its DCO application. Jim Crawford stated that EDF aimed to submit it in the first half of 2020. Jeff Hallett noted there had been concerns pertaining to congestion on the A12 at all levels. He asked if the DCO would include recommendations for how this could be mitigated. The villages around Wickham Market were worried about the local congestion. Richard Bull responded that the DCO would show updated traffic modelling, with the A12 being a particular area of focus. The modelling had demonstrated that traffic flows had improved following the last run of modelling. With regards to the discussions at Wickham Market, Richard Bull had been clear that EDF had presented a couple of options to deal with the traffic flow through Wickham Market. Both had received little support. EDF was happy to work with Pettistree Parish Council as well as Wickham Market Parish Council in order to devise a range of mitigation proposals. Mike Stevenson assumed that 80% of respondents had made no comments on the pylons during Stage 4. During Stage 2 Rendlesham Parish Council had been told that the layout of the structures and galleries had been determined by the regulators and could not be changed. Mike Stevenson believed that there had been a commercial decision not to underground the cables. Jim Crawford stated that while it was more expensive to underground cables; it would take up more land and require a more complex design. The technical justification would be included in the DCO application. Roy Dowding highlighted that Sizewell C had yet to obtain permission for the project to proceed. He asked why there was the need to destroy Coronation Wood. Jim Crawford replied that Coronation Wood had been a Sizewell B submission. Roy Dowding noted that Stage 3 had stated that the destruction of Coronation Wood was necessary as part of Sizewell C. Jim Crawford noted that relocated facilities had featured in the Stage 3 consultation. Tom McGarry